From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C118EC0044D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7725C20663 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="OHwtUxke" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7725C20663 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=shutemov.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 084196B0005; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:19:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 036106B0007; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:19:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id EB4CC6B0008; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:19:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0034.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.34]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3AE56B0005 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 08:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFE0180AD811 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:19:58 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76601132076.06.scarf76_1cdb1a9f6d707 X-HE-Tag: scarf76_1cdb1a9f6d707 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6984 Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com (mail-lf1-f68.google.com [209.85.167.68]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:19:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f68.google.com with SMTP id n20so10491942lfl.10 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 05:19:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=J8YUTClzRgvng0fzkDnAw6wm4bet3cBK2RMWpNTw50E=; b=OHwtUxkeYyduPn5JOxhuQR6L/s5Rpj50a+jiGUkG+EcQB/+vKpyNFpTgnwR4AKIbP4 TLWmj2PcNh6QFPo1YymyBhqrd/0wVX3C5vU/H9Z0a8bxfDpJQzSMJmRiaW+c7WPinTc0 yFKj4SJah/mRy9NJK5SnSDz2AlttQJgrsO7tEcehbWeWQTw8Ce1bQpYp93Sx7nfUTpQ/ dRsK2yY1dyNjg3cx6PybicSXjMIvS5oA2PGusg4UfMRiSL//+RxWmabACi45OPXmW5Sh 096RJdC2OtLBjLIru6TJgzTpymavrdzXxeqBkFXa50VJyyz1XzvajZmHJW6W6u0nqAW7 5fqQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=J8YUTClzRgvng0fzkDnAw6wm4bet3cBK2RMWpNTw50E=; b=Bym47A0p4561c7f3w4mP0Va/S5+W8Faz49+faPfzN7X2bZU2PJpUp0hp3eQ0mRlUGg J+ZRgj32RqRdMyxSUAcL30iTRrlCnQbu6TIbfW3MU/IXrSjdpOcWiFBmuFSupESrfEPA I54yGBOkVkiUg4cpTMtzrdh468MxtsWZqvAAWFU+5z+iAfNM0v8p1w/g64gtKIwyie3+ DNeQf/Bvdy6s70RLtLDvFgwR4SsSM7NnGfB+wT0V/HF9LVT9TbsE3PDpZTQJHdPpE6PW MQW0Gw82K15vMFnm0PLYMZ5LzP738HT9wt0sQ3HwuWk+eU51c1lexgdiHJkyAL29UdWD Cwng== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1lzgkRsOps3oR+lfA3W75MAAfaj9Xb/CBOONkccEvj7uD+yuEC vsiHN/rMpVk2DydMs4S+83Et+w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtYrnwB4BW815GverT2AqJB2YjKH7It9G4GEeOtBlqCITjbpOAvpuGmle+K2+n6HRxArZuPrg== X-Received: by 2002:a19:4f07:: with SMTP id d7mr97465lfb.30.1584361196442; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 05:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c20sm29388070lfb.60.2020.03.16.05.19.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 05:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D3FE0102588; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:19:55 +0300 (+03) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:19:55 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Michal Hocko Cc: Cannon Matthews , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Mike Kravetz , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Greg Thelen , Salman Qazi , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clear 1G pages with streaming stores on x86 Message-ID: <20200316121955.tqmhu57evzafc2cl@box> References: <20200307010353.172991-1-cannonmatthews@google.com> <20200309000820.f37opzmppm67g6et@box> <20200309090630.GC8447@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200309153831.GK1454533@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20200309183704.GA1573@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200311005447.jkpsaghrpk3c4rwu@box> <20200316101856.GH11482@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200316101856.GH11482@dhcp22.suse.cz> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:18:56AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 11-03-20 03:54:47, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:21:30PM -0700, Cannon Matthews wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:37 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:38:31AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > Gigantic huge pages are a bit different. They are much less dynamic from > > > > > > the usage POV in my experience. Micro-optimizations for the first access > > > > > > tends to not matter at all as it is usually pre-allocation scenario. On > > > > > > the other hand, speeding up the initialization sounds like a good thing > > > > > > in general. It will be a single time benefit but if the additional code > > > > > > is not hard to maintain then I would be inclined to take it even with > > > > > > "artificial" numbers state above. There really shouldn't be other downsides > > > > > > except for the code maintenance, right? > > > > > > > > > > There's a cautious tale of the old crappy RAID5 XOR assembler functions which > > > > > were optimized a long time ago for the Pentium1, and stayed around, > > > > > even though the compiler could actually do a better job. > > > > > > > > > > String instructions are constantly improving in performance (Broadwell is > > > > > very old at this point) Most likely over time (and maybe even today > > > > > on newer CPUs) you would need much more sophisticated unrolled MOVNTI variants > > > > > (or maybe even AVX-*) to be competitive. > > > > > > > > Presumably you have access to current and maybe even some unreleased > > > > CPUs ... I mean, he's posted the patches, so you can test this hypothesis. > > > > > > I don't have the data at hand, but could reproduce it if strongly > > > desired, but I've also tested this on skylake and cascade lake, and > > > we've had success running with this for a while now. > > > > > > When developing this originally, I tested all of this compared with > > > AVX-* instructions as well as the string ops, they all seemed to be > > > functionally equivalent, and all were beat out by this MOVNTI thing for > > > large regions of 1G pages. > > > > > > There is probably room to further optimize the MOVNTI stuff with better > > > loop unrolling or optimizations, if anyone has specific suggestions I'm > > > happy to try to incorporate them, but this has shown to be effective as > > > written so far, and I think I lack that assembly expertise to micro > > > optimize further on my own. > > > > Andi's point is that string instructions might be a better bet in a long > > run. You may win something with MOVNTI on current CPUs, but it may become > > a burden on newer microarchitectures when string instructions improves. > > Nobody realistically would re-validate if MOVNTI microoptimazation still > > make sense for every new microarchitecture. > > While this might be true, isn't that easily solveable by the existing > ALTERNATIVE and cpu features framework. Can we have a feature bit to > tell that movnti is worthwile for large data copy routines. Probably > something for x86 maintainers. It still need somody to test which approach is better for the CPU. See X86_FEATURE_REP_GOOD. -- Kirill A. Shutemov